Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 211 of 317 (640352)
11-08-2011 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Larni
11-08-2011 5:15 AM


Reply to Larni
designtheorist writes:
Briefly, the Big Banger (because he/she pre-exists time and space) is best thought of as non-temporal, eternal.
Larni responds:
This is special pleading.
How so? How would you describe a being who existed before time and the material universe? Can you honestly argue that such a being would be bound by the physical laws of the universe?
You say in Message 49 that you and Davies both agree.
Davies writes:
In the same way, speculation about what caused the big bang is also out of place because causes normally precede effects.
You misunderstand. I said I agreed with the Davies quote I provided. I did not say Davies agreed with me. In one post I even said that I go beyond what Davies would say but I believe my conclusion is warranted and I provided the logic which I used to get there. You have not pointed out any errors in my logic. BTW, I would say cause always precedes effects in the natural universe.
So Davies says speculation is out of place but here you are speculating a cause.
People are free to speculate about whatever they choose. You may or may not find my speculation interesting or compelling, but neither have you pointed out any errors in my logic.
Davies states in this part of his book that there is no causative agency.
I think what Davies is saying is that we cannot know for certain what the causative agency is.
You say there is one: your god who does not obey the laws of physics.
No. I said any creator God or Designer of the universe would be above the physical laws because he made the laws and he is not subject to them.
You are in direct opposition to what you wrote Davies states.
No, my position is the logical extension of Davies statement. If my logic is wrong, point out the error.
What you are doing is saying is, in essence "look at how I think the laws of physics make my god the only answer to the question about the origin of the big bang, but for this to work my god must break these laws of physics"
Not exactly right. I said the physical laws of the universe were not in effect at the big bang because the universe did not exist at that point. I also said it is logical to think any being powerful enough to create the big bang would retain that power. The law of conservation of energy says matter and energy are not created or destroyed. However, a creator God could certainly still create if he or she wanted to. The law of conservation of energy is a natural law applying to the physical universe and does not apply to immaterial, eternal and supernatural beings.
This is the logical fallacy called 'special pleading' with a liberal dose of 'god of the gaps'.
I don't see it that way. It is perfectly logical to think that if a creator God or Designer exists, it would be possible for that being to continue to create. I am not trying to explain any secondary creation here. I'm just saying it is illogical to assume any creative being could only do it once.
You need to do better than quote mining (and getting it wrong) and logical fallacies to get any traction for your ideas here.
I think the ideas have gotten some traction. There are already more than 200 posts. It is pretty hard to argue against the number of scientists who held to static universe theory were effected by their conversion to big bang theory. I provided a number of quotes showing it changed their world view and their thoughts about the possible existence of God. Atheist astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge once worried aloud that his peers might rush off to join "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang. If you don't understand why so many astronomers and physicists would look at the possibility of God differently, then you do not understand the big bang yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Larni, posted 11-08-2011 5:15 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Panda, posted 11-08-2011 10:47 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 219 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 12:06 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 238 by Granny Magda, posted 11-09-2011 2:19 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 242 by Admin, posted 11-09-2011 7:39 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 212 of 317 (640355)
11-08-2011 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Dirk
11-08-2011 8:52 PM


Reply to Dirk
Regarding the difficulty of quantifying the vastness of the ocean you write:
You must be joking. The Indian Ocean is 73,556,000 km2 and contains an estimated 292,131,000 km3 of water.
So, you think because you were able to look it up on google that it was easy to come up with those numbers? Do you know what instruments were used to arrive at that estimate? Do you know where the error bars are at? Do you have an opinion on whether the numbers would be the same if the estimate was made today as the last time? Or ten years before that?
Enough of this nonsense. Let's get back to the issue at hand. Do you see how the standard cosmology of the big bang supports the idea of a creator God or Designer of the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Dirk, posted 11-08-2011 8:52 PM Dirk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by hooah212002, posted 11-08-2011 11:49 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 218 by Dirk, posted 11-08-2011 11:59 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


(1)
Message 213 of 317 (640357)
11-08-2011 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Dr Adequate
11-08-2011 4:19 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
No, double-think is holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time and believing both of them. Holding them in your head and thinking that one or the other is true is normal. For example, I believe that you are male or female. PaulK thinks that either the universe had a beginning or it didn't.
You are right, of course. PaulK's comment confused me. It seemed to me that he was struggling with the idea both were true.
On the other point, I meant to type "universe" and not "earth." I will try to proofread my own copy better before submitting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-08-2011 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2011 1:28 AM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 215 of 317 (640359)
11-08-2011 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by DWIII
11-08-2011 10:12 AM


Reply to DWIII
And since when are only the famous scientists that you think you agree with right and every other famous scientist wrong? Or perhaps we could just throw sciency-sounding quotes at each other all day??? Sorry, but I have much better things to do with my valuable time.
I'm not saying every other scientist is wrong. The scientists I am quoting are describing the standard cosmology, the majority view regarding how the universe began. I thought I made that clear. There are scientists who proposed lesser known theories and these lesser known theories may turn out to be correct. My argument is that the standard cosmology of the big bang is compatible with and supports the view of a creator God or Designer of the universe.
You seem to want to disagree with me. If so, you need to find a way to argue that the big bang disproves God created the universe. You're welcome to try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by DWIII, posted 11-08-2011 10:12 AM DWIII has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 12:37 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 245 by DWIII, posted 11-09-2011 9:49 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 216 of 317 (640361)
11-08-2011 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Panda
11-08-2011 10:47 PM


Reply to Panda
Regarding the issue of traction, the thread has generated a lot of interest. No atheist has decided to believe in God, but that was not the goal. People have new information about the big bang and the history of big bang theory. As a result, people are thinking about the big bang in a new and different way whether they want to admit it or not. That's progress.
designtheorist writes:
It is pretty hard to argue against the number of scientists who held to static universe theory were effected by their conversion to big bang theory.
Panda writes:
Wrong - it is very easy to argue against it: it is called an Argument From Authority. It is the same logical fallacy that you have been previously criticised for.
A claim that I am presenting an Argument from Authority does not defeat the argument. After all, the expert I am quoting could be correct. None of my arguments have been defeated. They may have been named or misnamed, but that is not the same thing.
Here's a quote for you: "Appealing to authority is frequent in common discourse where providing complete evidence is rarely possible, and in many cases is a weak form of evidence rather than a logical fallacy."
‘Jl‘TI—oCg
I would say in many cases it is even strong evidence. If the question is "What did Albert Einstein say about x?" then quoting Albert Einstein is the strongest form of evidence possible (as long as it is a relevant quote and not out of context to change the meaning).
designtheorist writes:
Atheist astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge once worried aloud that his peers might rush off to join "the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang."
Panda writes:
Firstly: you are plagiarising this from other sites. You did not write it.
I did copy and paste one sentence as it contained the quote I was looking for and saved me keystrokes, but it is too short to be considered plagiarism.
Secondly: you are quote-mining Geoffrey Burbidge.
After the criticism you have received for plagiarism, Arguments From Authority and quote-mining, I would have hoped you would have adjusted your behaviour.
But honesty and logic both seem to be beyond your reach.
Here is a definition of quote-mining from RationalWiki: "Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint."
I did not quote Burbidge out of context. For example, I did not claim Burbidge held to the Big Bang theory. Burbidge was a witness to the impact the big bang had on astronomers and physicists and it bothered him. Like Fred Hoyle, Burbidge was a steady state guy (who had to keep changing his view because observations kept disproving his theory). I hate to sound like I'm ragging on Burbidge because he was a brilliant guy, but his strident atheism kept him from embracing Big Bang Theory.
As to honesty and logic, these are two of my strong points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Panda, posted 11-08-2011 10:47 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Panda, posted 11-09-2011 6:11 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 243 by Admin, posted 11-09-2011 8:18 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 221 of 317 (640367)
11-09-2011 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Pressie
11-09-2011 12:06 AM


Reply to Pressie
You see, here you lied again. Burbidge wasn’t worried about all those peers turning religious, he was worried that his peers followed the BB religiously. See, you didn’t tell the truth about what Burbidge thought. That is a classic definition of a quote mine. A form of telling porkies. Again.
Pressie, I won't claim you lied. I will just point out your error. Let's revisit the Burbidge quote exactly. "Geoffrey Burbidge once worried aloud that his peers might rush off to join 'the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.." He did not call it "the First Church of the Big Bang" which might have allowed for the interpretation you gave it. Obviously, Burbidge was concerned about his peers getting religious and turning to Christ.
The book by Robert Jastrow titled "God and the Astronomers" says much the same thing (only Jastrow was not concerned about it). I forget how Jastrow worded it exactly but he said something like "I would not be surprised if a cosmology arose which specifically relied on God as creator" (or he said something very similar to that). In a magazine interview Jastrow said That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.
This is becoming a constant theme, but I feel I have to say it again. If you do not understand that the big bang compatible with and supports the idea of a creator God or Designer of the universe, then you do not understand the big bang. This does not mean you have to believe in the existence of God or a Designer. But if you don't understand this point, then you have a complete misapprehension of this important period in the history of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 12:06 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 12:46 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 224 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 12:53 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 225 of 317 (640372)
11-09-2011 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Wollysaurus
11-08-2011 8:15 PM


Reply to Wollysaurus
That said, what I don't think you could *ever* prove is design with humans as an end goal. When I read Lee Strobel's _The Case for a Creator_ I was dismayed to read some very weak arguments towards the end of the book. I can't remember who he was interviewing (I don't have the book in front of me) however the arguments were dismal. That we are in a position to view eclipses was one particularly strange argument.
I have Strobel's book too. Parts of it were interesting and I found parts of it to be weak. I actually liked the argument regarding the earth being in position to view eclipses. I had never come across that idea before. Strobel was interviewing Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Wesley Richards. Gonzalez was talking about eclipses. It is a tad coincidental the Sun is 400 times larger than the moon and 400 times further away, making full solar eclipses possible. That does not happen anywhere else in our solar system. What was most impressive to me were the three discoveries made because of eclipses. If true, it does seem like evidence the Designer arranged for this relationship of Sun and moon so mankind could discover more secrets of the universe. I have not had the time to look into these claims to know for certain they are true, but they are definitely intriguing to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Wollysaurus, posted 11-08-2011 8:15 PM Wollysaurus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Dirk, posted 11-09-2011 1:06 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 250 by Taq, posted 11-09-2011 6:14 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 251 by NoNukes, posted 11-09-2011 8:13 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 257 by DWIII, posted 11-10-2011 4:54 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 226 of 317 (640373)
11-09-2011 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Pressie
11-09-2011 12:46 AM


Re: Reply to Pressie
Can you provide any evidence for your claim? A link maybe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 12:46 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 1:15 AM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 228 of 317 (640375)
11-09-2011 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Pressie
11-09-2011 12:37 AM


Reply to Pressie
What don’t you understand about the Law of Conservation of Energy? It is very straightforward: energy and matter cannot be created. By noone, nobody, nothing, not by a fairy with a magic wand or even by a garden gnome.
Energy and matter can't be created. Full stop. No word salad is going to change it.
Do you understand that your view is atypical? Perhaps atypical is not a strong enough word. Your view is 180 degrees from the most common interpretation of the big bang. Do you realize that?
You have a wrong idea about what the physical laws really mean.
Here's a quote for you:
"Scientific laws do not prescribe what must happen; they describe what has happened. The earth does not go round the sun because Newton's (or Einstein's) law makes it, or tells it to. The earth goes its own way, and the scientific laws are our generalized way of describing how it goes. All that they prescribe are our expectations." — Donald MacKay, The Clockwork Image
When we say energy and matter are not created or destroyed, this mean when matter is annihilated, energy is released. Nothing is lost. Also, matter does not just pop into existence unannounced. It is not likely you will go off to work in the morning and come home at night and find a pony in your living room. That kind of thing does not happen in our universe. (BTW, in Fred Hoyle's steady bang theory, matter was being created all the time.)
Logic tells us if there was a big bang, there has to be a Big Banger. The laws of the universe are not able to limit the Big Banger or prevent him or her from doing anything. The created thing is not more powerful than the creator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 12:37 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 1:21 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 232 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 1:31 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 240 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-09-2011 5:07 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 233 of 317 (640382)
11-09-2011 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Pressie
11-09-2011 1:15 AM


Re: Reply to Pressie
I was asking for a link to prove your claim that Burbidge was referring to the fervor of scientists for the big bang. But never mind, after more research I found that you are correct after all. Burbidge had to write a letter to someone to clear up the misunderstanding. Letter from Professor Burbidge was dated 31 January 1995.
Still, the point I was making is valid. The big bang did effect the world view of a large number of astronomers and physicists. If you doubt that, you can read Jastrow's book "God and the Astronomers."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 1:15 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 1:59 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 234 of 317 (640383)
11-09-2011 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Pressie
11-09-2011 1:31 AM


Re: Reply to Pressie
I wrote:
Here's a quote for you: "Scientific laws do not prescribe what must happen; they describe what has happened.. The Donald MacKay, The Clockwork Image
Pressie wrote:
Exactly, energy and matter could not be created in the past. You see, the Law of Conservation tells you what happened in the past. As well as what is happening today. Energy and Matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. Therefore, the idea of a creator is inconsistent with the laws of nature. Therefore no creator.
You are still missing the point. The physical laws only describe what happens in the natural universe, they do not prescribe what can happen. There is no physical law so powerful it could prevent God, if he exists, from creating or destroying matter or energy. This is muddleheaded thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 1:31 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2011 2:02 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 11-09-2011 10:00 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 235 of 317 (640384)
11-09-2011 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by PaulK
11-09-2011 1:28 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
So, we come to the question of which position you are going to take. Are you going to argue that the universe has existed for all time and also needs a cause ? If so, we need to see that argument because it is certainly not obvious that something that has always existed would need a cause.
Or are you going to find a different argument for your claim that the cause of the universe must be outside of spacetime ? Or drop that argument altogether ?
You are confusing me again, Paul. I have never argued the universe has existed for all time. This is the view of the static universe. It was common in the 19th and early 20th century. This view was overthrown by the big bang.
If you read the top post (comment #1), I made the argument that Big Bang Theory was compatible with and supports the idea of a creator God or Designer of the universe. Why?
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
If the universe has a beginning (and the big bang says it does), then it has a cause.
In comment #49, I provided some additional information about the big bang from leading experts who understand the details of the standard view of the big bang. These details make it clear the singularity could not exist without expanding rapidly. As soon as the singularity came into existence, the universe began to expand and burst onto the scene with light and heat.
So what happened before the big bang? Most physicists will not speculate because how can you speak of time before time began? My answer is that you can only speak of the cause of the big bang. Therefore it is logically consistent to say cause of the big bang had to exist prior to spacetime, which means the Big Banger is both timeless (eternal) and immaterial (not part of the physical universe). I quoted Paul Davies who also agreed the cause of the big bang could not be physical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2011 1:28 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by PaulK, posted 11-09-2011 2:22 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-09-2011 11:57 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 253 of 317 (640468)
11-10-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Parasomnium
11-09-2011 9:15 AM


Reply to Parsomnium
Parasomnium,
Parsomnium,
Thank you for a thoughtful post. You obviously spent a lot of time reading and thinking critically about my argument — and that’s great. I realize you were trying to leave out some details in your recap, but some of the details are quite important. If the foundations of the argument are not strong and well understood, then the later steps will seem devoid of logic. It may be helpful if I provide my own recap.
First, let’s start at the goal of the argument. The point is to persuade people that the big bang is both compatible with and supportive of the concept of a Universe Designer or Creator God. The goal is not to convince atheists that God exists or that God created. There will always be some idea or theory claiming to show a Designer or Creator is not necessary. It is not my goal to defeat each of these competing theories. Also, the goal is not to convince anyone that the big bang requires people to believe in a Universe Designer or Creator God. The goal is to demonstrate that the view the big bang is supportive of the idea of a Creator God is internally consistent.
Secondary goals for this debate include correcting or clarifying certain common misconceptions about the big bang, a theory which is poorly understood by most people. Misconceptions needing to be corrected include:
The false view the big bang is somehow anti-God or is evidence against creation
The false view the singularity could exist in that form for any period of time (the singularity is a mathematical concept, not a physical one)
The false view the singularity could somehow get triggered into the big bang through some physical/natural process
Adequate understanding of the science will correct each of the above false views. I attempted to clearly lay out the science which corrects these false views in Message 49. I also wish to argue that, while some scientists refuse to do so, it is possible to speculate about the nature of the Big Banger based upon the limited information we have. (Speculation can be based on logic and imagination, but not mathematical physics. Einstein said Imagination is more important than knowledge.)
With this as background, and building on al-Ghazali, we now we can summarize the steps of my argument:
If the universe had a beginning in the big bang (the standard view of cosmology)
The universe must have a cause.
The cause cannot be physical because it happened before the physical universe was created. (See Paul Davies book Cosmic Jackpot - Davies will not speculate on non-physical causes because he limits himself to mathematical physics)
And the cause happened before time was created. (See Paul Davies book)
Therefore it is internally consistent to believe the cause of the big bang (Big Banger) is both immaterial and timeless.
As corroborating evidence, I give you the history of science around the big bang. Robert Jastrow’s book God and the Astronomers is a detailed account of big bang theory and discovery of the CMB radiation (which confirmed the theory) and the impact it had on cosmology and the personal world views of these scientists.
Here’s a sampling of the quotes I presented earlier:
Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced sharply and suddenly at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 14).
Speaking of the big bang, agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow says: That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact. (A scientist caught between two faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow, Christianity Today, August 6, 1982).
Scientist George Smoot (who led the COBE team of scientists who first measured ripples in the cosmic background radiation) says: There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing. (quoted in Show me God by Fred Heeren, p. 139)
Until the late 1910’s humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning. - George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.30
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say supernatural) plan. - Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner in physics
I hope this recap helps you evaluate whether the argument I provided achieves the goal(s) I set out to achieve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Parasomnium, posted 11-09-2011 9:15 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Pressie, posted 11-10-2011 12:33 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 11-10-2011 1:50 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 256 by Parasomnium, posted 11-10-2011 4:05 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 258 by Admin, posted 11-10-2011 7:26 AM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 259 of 317 (640496)
11-10-2011 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Parasomnium
11-10-2011 4:05 AM


Re: Levels of inconceivability
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, it does not answer my question. What I want to know is how you get from an immaterial and timeless cause of the Big Bang to that cause having to be a being. You do not touch upon it at all.
Now I understand your question better. Thank you for clarifying. Several scientists have commented on how issues around the big bang begin bordering on philosophy. And philosophy can make certain physics people uncomfortable (although not Stephen Hawking who is always willing to discuss his philosophy).
The starting point is that nothing "physical" existed before the big bang so the big bang cannot be the result of natural forces. Davies makes that clear. So the cause of the big bang has to be supernatural. My mind can conceive of a supernatural being which is timeless and immaterial and powerful enough to design and create the universe out of nothing. My mind cannot conceive of any impersonal supernatural force with such capabilities. If your mind can conceive of this, I would be interested in hearing details.
Please remember, the goal is not to convince everyone that my argument is the only possible argument. The goal is to show that it is both internally consistent and reasonable. The reasonableness of the argument is seen in the fact many of the leading astronomers and physicists who have progressed Big Bang Theory have spoken in a similar vein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Parasomnium, posted 11-10-2011 4:05 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-10-2011 9:59 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 10:22 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 266 by kbertsche, posted 11-10-2011 11:03 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 279 by Taq, posted 11-10-2011 11:28 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 261 of 317 (640498)
11-10-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Admin
11-10-2011 7:26 AM


Re: Reply to Parsomnium
Please, no more quotes, it only invites discussion of what the people quoted really meant.
The request for no more quotes is not reasonable. You seem to have a mistaken idea that quotes are not a valid source of information. When discussing the history of science, it is important to read and understand quotes from the scientists themselves. I am quoting from the leaders of big bang science.
Yes, it invites discussion of what the quote was intended to say or if it was taken out of context and that is a good and valid discussion to have. It increases learning. If someone had not challenged the Burbidge quote, I would not have known there was any controversy about it.
By the way, I've been doing a little research on the Burbidge quote. I have not found the original article it appeared in yet, but I did find one important point in Burbidge's Ny Times obituary. The Times article quotes Allan Sandage as saying the Burbidge would call him three times a week for 40 years to debate the big bang. That, by itself, might not mean a lot to most people. But Allan Sandage was a leading astronomer in his own right and converted to Christianity because of the big bang. This is historical evidence Burbidge was concerned about his peers being converted to religion as a result of the big bang. Robert Jastrow talked about the topic in his book as well.
This cite is supposed to be about increasing understanding through discussion. By attempting to put quotes off limits, you are only getting in the way of the purpose of the web site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Admin, posted 11-10-2011 7:26 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 11-10-2011 10:15 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-10-2011 10:25 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-10-2011 10:39 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 11-10-2011 11:20 AM designtheorist has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024